Foreign Experience in the Legal Regulation of Virtual Assets in the Field of Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the

Abstract

The article provides a comparative legal analysis of the experience of selected foreign states (outside the European Union) in the legal regulation of virtual assets in the field of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, and determines its significance for the criminal-law policy of Ukraine. The empirical basis is a consolidated review of the legislation of 25 jurisdictions; the study employs comparative-legal, systemic-structural and functional methods, grouping states by legal families and regions. It is established that in all the states examined the anti-money laundering regime, built upon the standards of FATF Recommendation 15, constitutes the foundational framework for the legal protection of virtual assets, while national models differ primarily in the intensity of supervision. A spectrum of authorisation regimes for service providers is identified - from registration (the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, Canada), through licensing with quasi-prudential requirements (Japan), to a dedicated statute with a phased transition from registration to licensing and a regulatory sandbox (the Cayman Islands), and a self-regulatory-organisation model complemented by infrastructure licensing (Switzerland). It is argued that the best models combine legal precision with the technological neutrality of definitions and universal, exemption-free anti-money laundering coverage. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between the anti-money laundering regime and criminal law: most states rely on general criminal-law provisions combined with regulation, whereas the United States relies on robust special provisions and extraterritorial enforcement. The principal conclusion for Ukraine’s criminal-law policy is formulated: criminal-law measures should be applied as a last resort (ultima ratio) within a coordinated regulatory and preventive mechanism. Drawing on cautionary lessons (regulatory uncertainty in India, inter-agency conflict in Nigeria), the need for legal certainty and a clear allocation of powers between supervisory authorities is substantiated. Priority directions for improving national legislation are identified, taking into account the non-entry into force of the dedicated law and the trajectory of harmonisation with EU law.